User talk:KitMarlowe2
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Contents |
[edit] William Bast and The Myth Makers
Hi. I noticed that you linked the William Bast article to The Myth Makers. Do you plan to create an article on the Granada drama The Myth Makers? If so, we can discuss at Talk:The Myth Makers whether that drama or the Doctor Who story should be located at The Myth Makers, in keeping with the guidelines at Wikipedia:Disambiguation. If there's not going to be an article about the William Bast drama The Myth Makers, it should probably be de-linked from William Bast. Thanks. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 01:22, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Copyright issue with Mastering Witchcraft
Hello. Concerning your contribution, Mastering Witchcraft, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from either web sites or printed material. This article or image appears to be a direct copy from http://www.amazon.com/Mastering-Witchcraft-Paul-Huson/dp/0399504427. As a copyright violation, Mastering Witchcraft appears to qualify for speedy deletion under the speedy deletion criteria. Mastering Witchcraft has been tagged for deletion, and may have been deleted by the time you see this message. For text material, please consider rewriting the content and citing the source, provided that it is credible.
If you believe that the article or image is not a copyright violation or if you have permission from the copyright holder to release the content freely under the GFDL, you can comment to that effect on Talk:Mastering Witchcraft. If the article or image has already been deleted, but you have a proper release, you can reenter the content at Mastering Witchcraft, after describing the release on the talk page. However, for text content, you may want to consider rewriting the content in your own words. Thank you, and please feel free to continue contributing to Wikipedia. Wafulz 03:47, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
- Please read through WP:MOS, which will help address the {{wikify}} notice on Mastering Witchcraft. --Wafulz 21:59, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] License tagging for Image:130 Dark Avenger costume design 2.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:130 Dark Avenger costume design 2.jpg. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.
For more information on using images, see the following pages:
This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 02:05, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] POV regarding Wicca
I notice you've been doing a lot of subtle rewording in Wicca and related articles, to the effect that Wicca is not a bona-fide form of witchcraft. That is not a neutral point of view, since many people (particularly Wiccans) feel that it is a real and valid form of witchcraft. I have my own reservations as to how much Gardner was taught by members of the New Forest coven, and how much of Gardnerian Wicca actually reflects pre-20th century witchcraft practices, however it seems pretty clear that regardless of that Wicca is indeed a form of witchcraft, assuming witchcraft exists at all.
My own personal experience with Wicca is that the Gods who have appeared to us have eventually led me toward some of the older places and shapes, attested to in fairy tales, witch-trial records, and in some of the other witchcraft traditions such as Robert Cochrane's. However the fact is, the Gods do appear to us, and we do raise power; Wicca is indeed a "contacted" tradition. The Wiccan covens I've worked with (fairly traditional forms of Alexandrian Wicca) rock the socks off the majority of occultists, and I've worked with OTO and A:.A:. priests, Vodou Asogwes, high-ranking (33 degree) Masons, adepts of the original Stella Matutina, and a variety of other magicians, Qabalists, natural witches, etc. That's just my personal experience, of course, but perhaps you see where I'm coming from. If it works, and it's "contacted" with the gods of historical witchcraft, why wouldn't one consider it "witchcraft"?
In Wikipedia we've prominently mentioned the historical uncertainties in the appropriate articles, and we've pointed out the uncertainties regarding the verifiable reality of witchcraft itself, so I see no reason for us to labour these points further. If you have specific reasons for believing Wicca not to be a form of witchcraft, please open a discussion at Talk:Wicca and we can attack the issue openly. Otherwise, may I suggest that the changes you're making are not benefiting these articles; they introduce an unmistakable tone of bias and make the articles seem less authoritative to readers. Thanks, Fuzzypeg☻ 02:20, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
- I've reverted (again) your unexplained removal of a paragraph from Witchcraft. This is clearly a contentious edit, since someone else reverted it (me); in a contentious situation the done thing is to open a discussion on the discussion page, explaining what your problem with the material is and why/how you want to change it. The safest option when there is disagreement is to leave the article untouched until the issue can be resolved, but at the very least you should leave an edit summary or a comment on the talk page explaining why you're removing the material. Otherwise we have no way of understanding what your disagreement is, and no way of seeking agreement or compromise.
- Repeated blanking of sections of articles may also come to be considered vandalism, if you continue not to give any explanations. I don't think your reasons are malicious though — so what are they?
- Thanks, Fuzzypeg☻ 00:20, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for finally explaining your edits, and what your disagreement is founded on. OK. First thing is to clarify that Wikipedia's threshold for inclusion of information is verifiability, not truth. In other words, we're limited to saying what the historians have said.
Now Wicca and other contemporary forms of witchcraft share the status of having largely unverifiable histories. They are often poo-pooed by various historians as being purely modern inventions of self-aggrandising kooks. In fact the state of Wiccan history is currently changing; a vast quantity of new information gathered by Philip Heselton seems to clarify where the ceremonial magic and masonic influences came from, as well as giving more credibility to the claims that traditional forms of witchcraft were involved, dating back at least to the 19th Century.
Other forms of "traditional" witchcraft: the well-known flavours of "traditional" witchcraft are those of Robert Cochrane, Paul Huson and Andrew Chumbley, and perhaps a few others. None of these have verifiable history dating back as far as Wicca. And I reiterate, this is about verifiability, not truth. Just as Wicca has been denounced as a hoax, so have all these others. Ronald Hutton, supposedly the world's leading expert on modern witchcraft (gag), suggests that witchcraft never existed in Europe or the British Isles, and therefore any modern tradition is clearly invented.
There are those who point to the eclectic sources from which Wicca has drawn its rites. But some of these same people also point to the eclectic nature of other types of witchcraft. Huson and Chumbley both clearly drew from a wide variety of sources, many of them modern. In fact there's very little that's suggestive of them having been "educated" in any older tradition, rather than just being widely read and inventive writers. Gardner and Sanders were accused of being frauds who knowingly mislead the media and their own initiates; and of course Roy Bowers has tarred himself with exactly the same brush. To a dispassionate historian, the whole "1734" mystery would seem to have been a complete invention occasioned by Doreen Valiente's buying a platter from a jumble sale. That doesn't add to the credibility of his "traditional craft".
I happen to know different, because I have met the gods, and I know some of their landscapes and their mysteries. I know the Cochrane tradition to contain strong elements of real Craft because I recognise some of the same elements I have found through Wicca. I also know Wicca to be real Craft for pretty much the same reason.
You believe Wicca to not be real Craft, but mere posturing (although you allow that a strong practice can produce results even through this counterfeit system). I propose that you actually don't know what you're talking about. Are you a Gardnerian initiate? Are you an Alexandrian initiate? Which line? Do you have any conception of the bulk of Wiccan ritual, teachings and mysteries, which of course haven't ever been published? Are you perhaps confusing pop "eclectic wicca" with Wicca? They are a world apart.
However we now need to get back to the Wikipedia paradigm. Neither my experience nor your experience are of any importance here. What we know (or believe) to be true doesn't matter. You say Wicca is a Gardner/Valiente invention, period. There is no "period" here; that's just a way of saying "I'm not willing to debate this", but everything here is open to debate. If you want to be a contributor here you have to be willing to learn and even be proven wrong (Wiccan history as it currently stands is far more complex than your simplistic statement suggests). And when you don't actually have any support for what you're saying other than your own opinion, then there's no point saying it. You believe that Wicca doesn't produce real witches; I believe you don't have a clue what Wicca actually is; neither of these beliefs are of any interest to Wikipedia.
The articles have prominently-placed provisos regarding the question of whether "witches" are really witches, and whether Wicca (or other varieties of witchcraft) have any verifiable history; we don't need these further comments you've been adding, which add no verifiable information and seem purely derogatory. Fuzzypeg☻ 03:47, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
- Look, I included some of my personal thoughts because I thought they might be illustrative of some of my points regarding "original research" and "neutral point of view". I'm certainly happy to limit my discussion to matters of Wikipedia policy. The first policy I would direct you to is WP:CIVIL. The second point I would raise is that if you choose a single historian to give credence to, you have to be aware that other historians also exist who may not entirely agree. I'm surprised you rally behind Hutton, since he's thoroughly dismissive of all varieties of witchcraft claiming to be "traditional". In fact the picture he paints suggests that non-Wiccan "traditional witchcraft" was largely inspired by Wicca. The third point I might raise is that your hints about my being biased are correct; I am an expert in my subject area, and I'm privy to information that most people aren't, much of it unpublished. That knowledge sways my opinions on certain editorial matters. It's only natural. However if you look through the editorial history you'll find that I have made many edits establishing the late provenance of elements of Wicca. I'm interested in establishing truth, not in supporting some mythical history.
- You on the other hand have no such history of edits to demonstrate that you are not a "card-carrying" Wiccan detractor. So you would be better taking your own advice and sticking to editorial issues rather than accusing me of being impartial. If I raise a WP:NPOV dispute, you should give it serious consideration, not just tell me that my complaint doesn't count because I'm Wiccan. Fuzzypeg☻ 19:41, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image tagging for Image:Gerald B Gardner.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Gerald B Gardner.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.
For more information on using images, see the following pages:
This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 21:08, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
